The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information

Topics Filter?
2000 Election 2016 Election 2020 Election Academia Affirmative Action Africa Alt Right American Media American Military Antifa Antiracism Black Crime Black Lives Matter Blacks Brexit Britain China Conservative Movement Coronavirus Culture/Society Diversity Donald Trump Economics England European Right Foreign Policy History Human Biodiversity Humor Ideology Immigration IQ Iraq War Ireland Islam Joe Biden Judicial System Mathematics Miscellaneous Political Correctness Race/Ethnicity Racism Religion Republican Party Republicans Review Russia Science Terrorism The Straggler 2004 Election 2006 Election 2008 Election 2012 Election 2018 Election 9/11 Abortion Abraham Lincoln Afghanistan Africans Al Gore Al Sharpton Aldous Huxley Amazon American Left American Presidents American Renaissance Amnesty Amy Chua Ancient DNA Anglo-Saxons Anglosphere Ann Coulter Anti-Semitism Anti-Vaxx Anti-white Animus Antonin Scalia Artificial Intelligence Arts/Letters Asia Asian Americans Asian Quotas Asians Australia Australian Aboriginals Austria Barack Obama Bill Clinton Bioweapons Boris Johnson Brain British Politics Cambodia Canada Cancer Capitalism Catalonia Catholic Church Censorship Central Asia Charles Murray Charlottesville Chelsea Clinton China/America Chinese Chinese Evolution Christianity CIA Civil Liberties Civil Rights Civil War Communism Confederacy Congress Consciousness Conservatism Conspiracy Theories Constantinople Constitutional Theory Corruption Creationism Crime Critical Race Theory Crusades Cultural Marxism Cultural Revolution DACA Dalai Lama Dallas Shooting Deep State Democracy Democratic Party Demograhics Demographics Demography Discrimination Disease Disney Dreamers East Asians Ebola Education Eisenhower El Salvador Elections Elian Gonzalez Emmanuel Macron Energy Enoch Powell Environmentalism Espionage EU Eugenics Europe European Union Eurozone Evolution Evolution Of Language Evolutionary Biology Facebook Fake News Feminism Ferguson Shooting Fertility Rates Finland Floyd Riots 2020 France Gay Marriage Gays/Lesbians Gaza Gaza Flotilla Gender Equality George Floyd George W. Bush George Zimmerman Germany Global Warming Globalism Globalization Goldman Sachs Google Government Debt Government Spending Greece Gun Control Guns H-1B H1-B Visas Haiti Hamilton: An American Musical Harvard Hate Hoaxes Hbd Health Care Hillary Clinton Hispanic Crime Hispanics Hitler Hollywood Homosexuality Hong Kong Housing Huey Newton Human Evolution Human Genetics Human Genome Hungary Hunter Biden Hunting Ice People Illegal Immigration Imperialism Indians Infection Intellectuals Intelligence Intelligent Design Internet Iosef Stalin Iran Iraq Islamophobia Israel Israel Lobby Israel/Palestine Italy James B. Watson James Comey Japan Jared Kushner Jared Taylor Jeff Sessions Jeremy Corbyn Jews Jim Crow Jimmy Carter John Derbyshire John McCain Jussie Smollett Justice Kaiser Wilhelm Kamala Harris Koreans Kurds Kyle Rittenhouse Lenin LGBT Libertarianism Libya Looting Love MacArthur Awards Maoism Marc Faber Margaret Thatcher Mark Steyn Martin Luther King Mass Shootings Massacre In Nice Meghan Markle Memory Mencken Mental Illness Meritocracy Merkel Merrick Garland Mexico Michael Bloomberg Middle East Mind Minorities Mulatto Elite Multiculturalism Muslims National Debt Nationalism NATO Nature Vs. Nurture Nazi Germany Neandertal Admixture Nelson Mandela Neocons Neoconservatism New York City New York Times Nicholas Wade Nordics Norman Podhoretz North Korea Northern Ireland Nuclear Weapons Open Borders Orban Orlando Shooting Orwell Ottoman Empire Outsourcing Paris Attacks Pat Buchanan Paul Ryan People's Republic Of China Pete Buttgieg Peter Thiel Philosophy Poetry Police Population Population Growth Prince Harry Probability Proud Boys Public Schools Puerto Rico Quantum Mechanics Race Race And Crime Race And Iq Race/Crime Race Denialism Race/IQ Race Riots Racial Profiling Racial Reality Razib Khan Refugee Crisis Richard Lynn Riots Robots Ron Paul Ron Unz Ronald Reagan Roy Moore Rudyard Kipling Saddam Hussein Sailer Strategy San Bernadino Massacre Scandinavia Science Fiction Science Fiction & Fantasy Scotland Senate Siberia Silicon Valley Singularity Slavery Slavery Reparations Soccer Social Welfare Programs Solzhenitsyn Somalia South Africa Space Program Spain SPLC Stabby Somali Statistics Stephen Wolfram Stereotypes Steve King Steve Sailer Supreme Court Switzerland Syria Ta-Nehisi Coates Taiwan Taxes Tea Party Technology Television The Economist The New York Times Thomas Perez Tiananmen Massacre Tibet Tom Wolfe Tony Blair Torture Transgenderism Treason Turkey UKIP Ukraine Unemployment Uruguay US Capitol Storming 2021 Vietnam Violence Vladimir Putin Vote Fraud WASPs White Americans White Nationalism White Nationalists White Privilege White Supremacy Wikipedia William Buckley Winston Churchill Woke Capital World Cup World Population World War I World War II Xhosa Yemen Zimbabwe
Nothing found
 TeasersJohn Derbyshire Blogview

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter

Earlier: Peter Brimelow On Judicial Imperialism In FORBES…THIRTY [FIVE] YEARS AGO!

While I was putting together my notes for today’s podcast, the news came out that, as leaked a few days ago, the U.S. Supreme Court has indeed reversed the 1973 abortion decision Roe v. Wade.

You can read it below, with tendentious annotations from the New York Times, or take it plain in PDF here.

There is, after all, the Supremes have ruled, no national right to an abortion hidden in the cracks and fissures of the U.S. Constitution. If Americans at large would like there to be such a national law, they should lobby their senators and congressmen to write and enact one. Should whatever is written and enacted then be judged unconstitutional by the court, citizens should agitate for an appropriate constitutional amendment.

That’s the system we have and have had since the Founding. But since the mid-1960s it has been corrupted by judicial imperialism, aided and abetted by Congress failing to carry out its proper functions.

There have been a few jurists aware of the problem, and vocal in their written opinions that it is not the job of the courts to legislate; but their voices have been drowned out by the modern liberal intelligentsia, which has included most of our lawyers and judges.

My favorite of those few dissident voices: the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who left us six years ago. When I saw this morning’s news my first thought was: “Ah, the Spirit of Scalia!” Apparently, the late Justice’s spirit is indeed active in the Roberts court.

I mentioned constitutional amendments. When was the last one, do you know? Answer: It was thirty years ago last month.

Just keep that number thirty in mind while I cruise back through the last ten amendments to the Constitution, saying aloud the number of years that elapsed between each amendment and the previous one. You ready?

Starting with the last amendment thirty years ago, the previous one was 21 years before that, the one prior four years before that. So the sequence goes: 30, 21, 4; then 3, 3, 10, 18, 0, 13, 1.

That takes us back to 1919, 103 years ago. As you can see, that current gap of 30 years—and there’s no amendment in sight, so the actual number will be bigger—but even just as it is, that gap of 30 years is a real anomaly in modern American history.

Never mind “modern,” in fact. If you go still further back, all the way from 1919 to the adoption of the Constitution in 1787, what was the average gap between amendments in years across that span? Answer: less than eight years—seven point seven something.

It’s the same with other parts of that wonderful constitutional machinery the Founders bequeathed to us—with impeachments, for example, which are way too few.

That machinery, that wonderful, vigorously argued, carefully thought-out machinery, is idle and rusting, tempting power-hungry villains and moralizing zealots to bypass it: tempting the Executive to cease enforcing laws they don’t like, Congress to neglect key issues their big-money donors want neglected, the Judiciary to make the laws Congress won’t make.

Now, here at last, we see a reversal of the trend. Hallelujah! May there be many more to come.

Concerning the abortion issue itself: personally, I sit, as I’ve often said, with the majority of Americans overall, or perhaps a tad to the right of them, in not minding abortion on demand up to some definite limit—twelve weeks seems to be the consensus—with abortion thereafter legal only when there is indisputable risk to the mother’s health in going to term.

That is, I believe and hope, a mild, sensible opinion midway between the every-sperm-is-sacred lobby and the folk who want to decapitate unwanted newborns.

I’m not deeply concerned about the issue, though, and I’ll go along with whatever the people of my state decide following this ruling. I may grumble a bit, that’s all.

There are, of course, plenty of people out there wa-a-a-ay more passionate than that on the issue. It is in fact a touchstone issue for our Cultural Revolutionaries, and for the Ruling Elites who support them.

We have already seen some very nasty demonstrations in front of the Supreme Court building and outside the private homes of dissident Justices—Justices, I mean, whose written opinions contradict elite ideology. There has been one attempt by a Cultural Revolutionary to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, i nspired by the leak of the Roe v. Wade reversal[Man accused in Kavanaugh assassination plot pleads not guilty , by Dan Morse, Washington Post, June 22, 2022].

The next few days will show us how willing the Regime is to deploy its forces against class enemies. Those forces will include both regulars and irregulars: both federal agencies like the Justice Department, the FBI, and the DHS, and also irregulars like Antifa, BLM, and this new one called Jane’s Revenge.


We just got numbers for illegal aliens apprehended on our southern border last month: a tad short of 240,000 [ Migrant encounters hit another high, over 100K removed under Title 42, by Callie Patteson, NY Post, June 17, 2022 ]. That’s the highest number of migrant encounters recorded in one month ever. It brings total encounters in FY 2022 to more than one and a half million.

That’s “encounter,” mind. The actual encounter being tallied there is one between an invader and a Border Patrol officer. Either the invader presents himself to Border Patrol with some plausible claim for entry, or he tried to sneak in avoiding the Patrol but got caught by chance. Some large but unknown number of sneak-ins did not get caught.

The good news is that 42 percent of these encounters were deported—or at any rate, “processed for deportation”—under Title 42, the Trump-era protocol allowing deportation on health grounds that Joe Biden tried to end until he was thwarted by a judge.

The other 58 percent are being processed under Title 8 of current immigration law. That will result in some number of them being deported. How many: fifty percent? a hundred percent? ten percent? I don’t know.

For a clue I have this from Washington Examiner:

More than 2 million migrants were stopped while attempting to enter the U.S. from Mexico illegally in the calendar year 2021 [not to be confused with fiscal year] … Of the 2 million, roughly 1.1 million were immediately expelled back to Mexico or flown to other countries. Some attempted crossing multiple times, inflating the numbers. But nearly 800,000 were released into the U.S.

Two million stopped while illegally entering US from Mexico in 2021, by Anna Giaritelli, January 24, 2022

Emphasis added.

As dumb and treasonous as our current immigration policies are, they fairly glow with integrity, efficiency, and patriotism by comparison with Britain’s. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say—and I say it in all earnestness—that Britain’s clueless, brainless, worthless government is currently perpetrating the greatest immigration fiasco since Chinese General Wu Sangui opened the gates of China to the Manchus in 1644.

I’ve been reporting to you, most recently on June 3rd, about the swelling numbers of illegal aliens crossing the English Channel from France—more than ten thousand so far this year[Next stop Rwanda? More than 100 Channel migrants land in Kent bringing total to 10,131 this year… as lawyers battle to stop Africa deportation flights, Daily Mail, June 13, 2022].

This is the fourth year it’s been happening. The numbers for these four years, to the nearest thousand: 2019—two, 2020—eight, 2021—twenty-nine. Estimates for this year’s total start at fifty; and once again, these are thousands, so that’s fifty thousand.

Essentially none of these invaders get expelled. They plead asylum or refugee status, although that is a priori preposterous: they’re coming mosr recently from France, where they could also have claimed asylum. They destroy their identity documents so they can’t be deported. The British authorities conscientiously process their bogus asylum claims anyway, putting them up in good hotels while the processing is under way.

For three of those four years the invasion went on with the British government doing nothing at all about it. This, incredible to report, is a government of the Conservative Party; but these are metropolitan progressives led by a Prime Minister who has, all through his political career, been well-known as an enthusiast for multiculturalism.

Then, earlier this year, pressure from voters became too strong to ignore. The government grudgingly agreed to do something about the invasion.

What did they do? They cut an agreement with the black African country of Rwanda to take in some of the illegals while their obviously-fake asylum applications were processed. We first heard that 700 illegals would be shipped to Rwanda, to be accommodated in that country’s hotels.

Britain, however, is choc-a-bloc with well-funded groups who favor mass illegal immigration. They got busy lawyering [Another 150 migrants cross English Channel – a day after Rwanda flight was grounded by Euro court: Asylum seekers give thumbs up as dozens arrive in Dover and 12 land on beach in Devon ‘before fleeing in waiting cars’, Daily Mail, June 15, 2022]. That 700 was quickly whittled down to 130—which is still a good plane-load.

By the time the first flight to Rwanda was scheduled for Tuesday last week, the 130 had been further whittled down to seven. The pro-illegal activists swung into action on Tuesday, blocking exit routes from the airport detention center and lawyering up a frenzy. By late Tuesday it seemed there was just one illegal left on the plane.

Then some outfit called the European Court of Human Rights issued an injunction to prevent that one illegal being deported. So the flight was cancelled. Number of illegals deported: zero.

Wait: Didn’t the Brits unshackle themselve s from Europe? How come they have to obey this ruling by a bunch of Frogs, Krauts, Dagos, and Wops? I have no idea. Nobody in Britain seems to have any idea, either.

While all this was going on, of course several hundred new scofflaws landed in Britain and were escorted to nice hotels.

Did I say “fiasco”? This makes our own Border Tsar—or “Tsarina,” I guess—this makes Kamala Harris look like a strategic mastermind.

As an ex-Brit, in a spirit of nostalgic affection for the old place, I hereby offer my advice to the British government free of charge.

  • Arrest everyone who lands in your country illegally. Confine them in special secure camps, with the right to self-deport at any time.

What, you don’t have those kinds of facilities? Then build them, dammit. When COVID came up the ChiComs built a 1,500-room hospital in five days [China builds hospital in 5 days after surge in virus cases, Associated Press, January 16, 2021]

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Britain, Immigration 

[Excerpted from the latest Radio Derb, now available exclusively through]

See also: CAPITOL “INSURRECTION” HOAX: How Our Lying Press Would Have Spun Jan 6 Protest If Trump Were A Democrat [VIDEO]

Top of the news today, at any rate in the Regime Media, is the first of the six (6) congressional hearings we’ve been promised on last year’s Capitol Hill protests against the 2020 election.

The chairman of this event is some congresscritter named Bennie Thompson, of whom I had never heard until yesterday. Representative Thompson is black, as he was at pains to make clear for those people watching who may have failed to notice the fact. Edited quote:

Thanks to everyone watching tonight for sharing part of your evening, to learn about the facts and causes of the events leading up to and including the violent attack on January 6th, 2021 … on our democracy, electoral system, and country.

I am Bennie Thompson, Chairman of the January 6th, 2021 Committee. I was born, raised and still live in Bolton, Mississippi, a town with a population of 521, which is midway between Jackson and Vicksburg, MS, and the Mississippi River.

I am from a part of the country where people justified the actions of slavery, the Ku Klux Klan and lynching. I’m reminded of that dark history as I hear voices today try and justify the actions of the insurrectionists on January 6th, 2021[Read the full text of chair Bennie Thompson’s remarks in first Jan. 6 hearing, NBC, June 9, 2022].

Ah, the romance of American blackness! Thirty seconds into the committee hearings and we’re already deep into black narcissism. I didn’t stick around for the obligatory mention of Emmett Till.

Do black Americans—the pampered, privileged pets of our society—do they really not have any idea how much so many of us resent their endless whining?

We have twisted and deformed our entire society—our justice system, our educational system—in efforts to appease them, but they only ask for more.

There is an instance of that deformation of our society staring right back at you, Mr. Chairman: the January 6 killing of unarmed white female protestor Ashli Babbitt by armed black male Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd. After a perfunctory inquiry, Lt. Byrd was cleared of any wrongdoing.

I know it’s trite to say it, Mr. Chairman, but do you really believe that a white male cop who shot an unarmed black woman under any circumstances whatsoever would get away without a word of reprimand?

You believe that? Really?

Now tell me what federal statistics show about black assaults on whites. A respectable commentator has written the following:

In the U.S., blacks commit the vast share of the interracial violence between blacks and whites that is not classified as a hate crime: 88 percent [Using Tragedy for Racial Propaganda, by Heather Mac Donald, City Journal, May 23, 2022].

Is that figure wrong, Mr. Chairman? As a federal legislator, do you have federal statistics that contradict it?

Accumulated over the 157 years since the Civil War ended, what are the numbers for (a) blacks killed by whites using any method, including lynching, and (b) whites killed by blacks? Do you have an estimate for those numbers, Mr. Chairman?

I’m wasting my breath, of course. This is the United States of Black Racial Grievance. The whining, the narcissism, the twisting and deforming: these are America’s reason for existing. Without them we would drift aimlessly, without purpose or goal.

And this committee and its so-called “investigation” is, as most of us understand, nothing to do with justice, Constitutionality, or national security. It is the opening salvo in a crudely political campaign to prevent Donald J. Trump from running for president in 2024.

The hatred our Ruling Class has for Trump is manifest. It still, after six years, burns fierce and bright. It’s really an extraordinary thing.

I can remember the hatred those same people—well, their 1970s equivalents—had for Richard Nixon, who was a much better president—and a much better man—than Trump.

One of my workmates at Savin Business Machines in the mid-1970s was proud owner of some rolls of toilet paper with Nixon’s portrait on each sheet. Even at the time, when I was still a liberal twenty-something, I thought that was a bit over the top. Or under the bottom, perhaps…

The Regime’s hatred of Trump is far beyond that. It’s really a wonder to behold, and drives much of our national policy.


[Excerpted from the latest Radio Derb, now available exclusively through]

As a former subject of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, one graph I keep returning to in anger and despair is the one that shows up at the Daily Mail website from time to time, the one headed “Number of Migrants Crossing the Channel on Small Boats.”

Source: UK migrant arrivals last year were 95 times higher than in 2018: More than 28,500 crossed the Channel in small boats compared to just 299 in 2018 – as number of asylum applications climbs to the highest in 20 years, By Stewart Carr, February 24, 2022

That’s the English Channel, of course; and “migrants” is government-speak for “illegal entrants.”

The thing that fascinates me about this graph is the way they have to keep adjusting the vertical scale. This version, for example, is from September 2021:

Source: Migrant Channel crossings reach a record high: Number detained by Border Force trying to get to the UK soars to 16,299 – nearly double 2020’s total, By Jacob Thorburn, September 23, 2021

If you’re not familiar with this graph, the horizontal scale, along the bottom, just shows the months of the year, January to December. The vertical scale, up the left-hand side, shows, quote, “Number of Migrants Crossing.” That’s a cumulative number: so the number shown for April, for example, is the total number that year up to the end of April.

Then, in the body of the graph itself are colored lines: a yellow line for the year 2019, an orange one for 2020, a red one for 2021, and a blue one for 2022.

The yellow line, for 2019, creeps hesitantly up through its year from zero to a year-end total a bit short of 2,000. The 2020 line is steeper, ending that year above 8,000. Then we’re off to the races: 2021 end with 28,526; and the 2022 line, which of course only goes as far as the end of May, is already steeper than last year’s. This year’s number will be way more than 28,000; some guesses say over 50,000. Time to adjust that vertical scale again …

Yes: the invasion of Britain by Third World opportunists is now at Camp of the Saints levels. (You can still buy a physical copy of Camp of The Saints from

Things have gotten so bad that even the worthless, useless British government, which would much rather just let the invasion happen, even these flabby impotent seat-warmers feel obliged to do something—or, more precisely, to look as though they’re doing something.

Their latest gesture in that direction has been a scheme to send the illegals to the African country of Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed. The first batch of illegals to be thus processed have been identified and notified for shipping out next month.

It’s all theater. For one thing, the number to be shipped next month is 100; so even if that can be done every month to the end of the year, the total will be only 700. That’s out of the likely forty or fifty thousand illegals arriving in Britain this year—not to mention the similar number already here from those previous three years.

And Britain has a large and busy cadre of so-called “human rights lawyers,” all geared up to stop the deportations with rulings and injunctions that will take years to go through the justice system. They are supported by Woke activists ready to l ie down on the airport runways to prevent deportation planes from taking off.

British immigration patriots had been assuming that the deported illegals would be put in camps in Rwanda; but that’s not at all what the British government has in mind. The illegals, it’s been revealed, are to be installed in Rwanda’s luxury hotels, complete with swimming pools, outside bars and restaurants, and spa facilities[EXCLUSIVE Inside the £46-a-night hotel in Rwanda that will house UK’s illegal migrants: Asylum-seekers flown to East African nation will stay in three-star resort with swimming pool, gym, tennis court and golf course, by Nick Fagge In Rwanda, Mailonline, May 31, 2022].

Also free WIFI, tennis courts, gyms and golf courses. The rooms have private bathrooms and showers, something you still don’t always get in British hotels.

In the annals of immigration lunacy, this is a record-breaker. And this, remember, is under a Conservative Party government. Britain’s other big political parties are even more devoted to wide-open national borders … although they would object to the word “national” as a hateful vestige of imperialist white supremacy.

Poor Britain; poor, poor old Britain. It used to be a lovely country. I remember it well.

• Category: Culture/Society, Foreign Policy • Tags: Britain, Immigration 

First duty

“We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.”

Right-o, George.

  • Criminals should be (humanely) locked up in prisons away from law-abiding citizens.
  • Mad people should be (humanely) locked up in asylums away from normal people.
  • Homeless people should not be allowed to camp in public places. If mad, as is commonly the case, they should be locked up in asylums; if sane, they should be given beds in hostels for the purpose; if they refuse, they should be charged with criminal vagrancy and, on conviction, locked up in prisons.
  • Foreigners who enter your country without permission should be (humanely) deported absent any claim of distressful necessity. If such a claim is presented, the foreigner should be (humanely) locked up pending validation of the claim. Accompanying minors should be locked up with basic health care and education. When deportation is not possible (source country unknown or unwilling to accept) and no claim of necessity can be verified, the foreigner should be (humanely) locked up indefinitely, with the option to self-deport at any time; any children should be transferred to adult detention at maturity.
  • International rules on refugee settlement should include an affinity principle.
  • Our species, like other higher animals that reproduce sexually, exhibits fundamental biological differences between males and females.
  • Our species, like any other with wide distribution, consists of local races differing in all heritable or part-heritable traits, including behavior, intelligence, and personality. The differences are slight and statistical, with much overlap and many outliers; but when large numbers of different races are in comparison, the Law of Averages makes race differences obvious and socially consequential.
  • The benefit to be gained from formal schooling varies widely among people. Some large proportion of the population—perhaps half—gains no benefit from schooling after puberty. The proportion that gains benefit after age 18 is less than ten percent. College education is a waste of time for most people.
  • (To be continued.)

Re-remembering Bertrand Russell

That observation by George Orwell that I opened with there was part of a book review Orwell published in 1939. The book under review was Bertrand Russell’s Power: A New Social Analysis. You can read the entire review here.

The 18th of this month marked Russell’s 150th birthday. There have been some scattered tributes on social media.

I thought I would add a tribute of my own. As my fingers hovered over the keyboard, however, I recalled that I had memorialized Russell in my Diary two years ago on the 50th anniversary of his death. Looking it up, I can’t think of anything to add; so if you want my take on Bertie, there it is.

Bring back asylums!

Concerning the second item in my opening segment—that mad people should be confined in asylums—I didn’t write the words blithely. I am well aware of what ghastly places lunatic asylums too often were.

If you are not so aware, I recommend a few minutes googling on “Byberry State Hospital” in Philadelphia. Charles Lord, a Quaker, registered as a conscientious objector in WW2 and was assigned to work as an orderly at Byberry. He took many surreptitious photographs of conditions in the asylum. In 1946 those pictures were published in Life magazine, to nationwide outrage.

You can easily find Lord’s photographs on the internet, though for some of them you need to have a strong stomach—the Male Incontinent Ward, for example. (The next ward over was the Male Violent Ward, known to asylum staff as The Death House.)

It was that and similar exposures that kick-started the de-institutionalization movement. No, it wasn’t the movie One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (1975), nor the novel that movie was made from (1962). Nor was it the 1960s rise of psychiatric contrarians like Erving Goffman, Thomas Szasz, and R.D. Laing. They just gave assists to a trend long since under way.

While it is true that at the aggregate, national level, mental hospital populations only began to trend downwards in the mid-1950s, in many places such declines are observable as early as 1947 and 1948, long before the new drugs appeared on the scene. [Madness in Civilization by Andrew Scull (2016), p.368.]

So asylums … yeah. They are never going to be popular places because of deep, universal human fears. There’s no reason why they shouldn’t be humanely run, though, if funding and staff training are sufficient and public supervision vigilant, none of which was the case for 1940s Byberry. Surreptitious photographs? This is the age of the smartphone. Byberry wouldn’t get away today with what they got away with in 1945.

And there isn’t any alternative. Sure, we have drugs for some mental conditions, drugs we didn’t have in the 1940s; but they are palliative, not curative—and only palliative if you are sane enough to take them, or else are supervised to do so.

“Community care” is a sick joke, as you can see in the streets of any big city. Andrew Scull, in the book I just quoted, is withering about it.

Without the asylums that once functioned to move such people off the streets, an alternative must be found. And that alternative is often jail. In America, for example, the largest single concentration of the seriously mentally ill resides in the Los Angeles County Jail …


Tuesday’s horror naturally brought to mind the similar event ten years ago in Newtown, CT when 20-year-old Adam Lanza went on a shooting rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School. He killed twenty of the school’s children and six teachers, then shot himself. Before setting out on his rampage he’d shot and killed his mother, with whom he lived. Lanza’s parents had separated when he was nine; he hadn’t seen his father for two years.

The killer in Texas this week was 18-year-old Salvador Ramos. The town was Uvalde, TX; the school, Robb Elementary. Ramos killed nineteen children and two adults before being shot dead by a Border Patrol agent. Before setting out on his rampage Ramos had shot his grandmother, although not fatally. He lived with the grandmother because his mother had thrown him out.

Aside from noting these obvious parallels I can’t think of much to say that I didn’t say ten years ago about the Sandy Hook massacre—listen here.

I’m skeptical of talk about causes and solutions. I don’t believe this is a zone of cause and effect, of problem and solution: I think this is a zone of chaos; a zone where stuff happens, without any rhyme or reason we can comprehend at the present state of our knowledge.

For sure, the event itself is not an issue on which any sane person can take sides. There is no argument to be made for the mass murder of little children. Even in the worst extremes of total war, where things can get pretty indiscriminate, the deliberate targeting of children is beyond the bounds of acceptable behavior, by common agreement among civilized peoples.

The main thing I’d change: my 2012 description of the NRA as “one of the best-organized and most effective lobbies in our political life.”

I’m still an NRA member and I still donate when I can, but they have foolishly gotten themselves into legal tangles [The lawsuit seeking to impose the “death penalty” on the NRA, explained, by Ian Millhiser, Vox, May 13, 2021] that I believe with good sense, good accounting, and foresight they could have avoided. I doubt those tangles will end with the NRA being dissolved, but it will be less able to stand as first line of defense for our Second Amendment rights.

That’s a big blow to our rights just by itself. The power-hungry government gun-grabbers will worm their way into any cracks in our defenses, and right now the NRA is showing a lot of cracks.

The Uvalde killings actually illustrated some of our favorite Second Amendment talking-points. For example, we have all enjoyed the quip: “Call for the cops, call for a pizza delivery, see which one gets to you first.”

In the case of Uvalde, the answer is plain. Salvador Ramos fired off his first shots in the street outside Robb Elementary School at 11:28 a.m. The first 911 call came in about two minutes later, at 11:30. Cops first showed up at 11:44—so that’s a fourteen-minute delay [ Cops now say Salvador Ramos entered school ‘unobstructed,’ wasn’t shot dead for nearly an hour , by MaryAnn Martinez, Craig McCarthy and Jorge Fitz-Gibbon , NY POST, May 28, 2022]

My bet’s on the pizza delivery.

And what did the cops do when they got there? Why, they made lots of phone calls: for body armor, snipers, trained negotiators.

Around 11:54—so this is ten minutes after the cops showed up—parents began arriving and begged the cops to storm the school building. The cops, annoyed at having their phone calls interrupted, acted on the time-honored principle of policing everywhere: that law-abiding citizens are much easier to beat down than are criminals and lunatics.

At least one mother, Angeli Rose Gomez, who had children in third and fourth grade at the school, was handcuffed. She told The Wall Street Journal she saw other parents tackled, tasered, and pepper-sprayed while Salvador Ramos went gleefully about his work inside the school [Uvalde Shooter Fired Outside School for 12 Minutes Before Entering, by Douglas Belkin, Rob Copeland, and Elizabeth Findell, May 26, 2022].

It’s hard to see how private citizens, whose primary concern is the safety of their loved ones, could do any worse of a job.

That’s the beating heart of citizens’ rights, including Second Amendment rights, right there.

As a footnote to that, I’m wondering whether perhaps Latino government is even suckier than the Anglo-Saxon variety. Uvalde, although of course in the U.S.A., is a very Latino town. Look at the names of the dead: Ramirez, Garcia, Rodriguez, Torres[The victims of the Texas school shooting in Uvalde, Los Angeles Times, May 24, 2022].

But is there an immigration angle? A friend who lived and worked in that area forty years ago doubts it:

These Hispanic Texans have been in the US longer than even most of my ancestors. Maybe there are some [illegal] immigrants since I was there, but back then at least in Carrizo, Crystal City, and even more so in Uvalde, there were not a lot of recent immigrants. They either stayed in the border towns, or headed north to the cities. The Uvalde region was too poor, and the Hispanic Texans didn’t like immigrants very much. They may have not liked Anglos much either, but they identified as Americans, they didn’t wave the Mexican flag around.

One final note here. Talking heads on TV are shrieking for Congress to do something or other about guns. Hoo-kay: What did Congress do after Sandy Hook? Obviously, nothing that fixed the problem of crazy kids shooting up schools.

But that’s what Congress mostly does—nothing. Well, not altogether nothing. There’s the Freedom to Fish Act, forty billion dollars for Ukraine, the world’s second most corrupt white nation (the first of course being Russia), and similar legislation that either nobody of any importance cares about or that nobody of any importance disagrees about.

So I’m not worried that Congress will take away our gun rights. Some Kritarch may take them away; Joe Biden may take them away; but Congress? Fugeddaboutit.

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Gun Control, Mass Shootings 

[Excerpted from the latest Radio Derb, now available exclusively through]

See also:’s Brimelow: “This Is A Communist Coup. But White America Is On The Move”

Communism has always suffered from tensions caused by the need for both political rectitude and expertise in fields of practical knowledge.

Fields like medicine, for example. Lenin nursed a deep distrust of Bolshevik doctors. In a letter to the writer Maxim Gorky, who suffered from TB, Lenin wrote:

The news that you are being given a new kind of treatment by “a Bolshevik,” even if a former one, has really worried me. The saints preserve us from comrade-doctors in general, and Bolshevik-doctors in particular! …In 99 cases out of 100 the comrade-doctors are “asses,” as a good doctor once said to me. I assure you that you should consult … only first-class men. It is terrible to try out on yourself the inventions of a Bolshevik!

Lenin: TO MAXIM GORKY, November 1913

So at least where medicine is concerned you can put Lenin on the side of the experts against the ideologues. He didn’t care how Bolshevik his doctors were; in fact he preferred them not Bolshevik at all. He just wanted them to be good at doctoring.

Stalin not so much. The late Boris Zeldovich, son of the great Soviet physicist Yakov Zeldovich, told me that Lavrenty Beria, the head of Stalin’s secret police, saved many lives among Zeldovich’s fellow physicists working on the early Soviet nuclear program.

Stalin, said Boris, would have anyone shot on suspicion of political “unreliability,” but Beria knew that some personnel had knowledge and skills critical to the USSR’s progress, so he protected them even when they strayed from the Party line.

In Mao Tse-tung’s China this dichotomy between people who were politically pure and people who actually knew useful things was expressed as “Red” versus “Expert.” In his writings Mao tried to fudge the issue by appealing to the Interpenetration of Opposites, one of the principles of Dialectical Materialism.

Mao wasn’t much of a philosopher, though. The much-advertised Mao Tse-tung Thought was just a cheap Chinese knock-off of Marxist-Leninism. Mao kept losing the thread of his argument and coming down on the side of the “Reds” against the “Experts.” Sample quote:

Ideology and politics are the commanders, the soul. A slight relaxation in our ideological and political work will lead our economic and technological work astray.

Red And Expert, January 31, 1958

In our own Cultural Revolution in the West today, that same divide between “Red” and “Expert” is plain to see, and we don’t even have the philosophical mumbo-jumbo of Dialectical Materialism to tell us about interpenetrating opposites. When “Red” and “Expert” are in conflict, the “Red” must win and the “Expert” be crushed, expelled, canceled.

I offer you three and a half case studies from just the past few days. I

  • Case Study One:

Fifty-four-year-old David Sabatini, a world-famous molecular biologist specializing in how cancer tumors develop.

Four years ago Sabatini was a tenured professor at MIT. For twenty years he’d been running a big lab at the nearby Whitehead Institute for biomedical research, supervising a team of 39 researchers.

Sabatini is a real Expert—a genius, according to colleagues. He made a key discovery in cancer research while he was still at medical school. Back in 2018 he was a good bet for a Nobel Prize.

So what’s the latest news on David Sabatini? I’ll let Suzy Weiss, writing on her sister Bari Weiss’ Substack site, tell you:

Today, Sabatini is unemployed and unemployable. No one wants to be associated with him. Those who do risk losing their jobs, publishing opportunities, friends, visas, and huge federal grants.

He Was a World-Renowned Cancer Researcher. Now He’s Collecting Unemployment, May 19, 2022

What precipitated such a downfall? The key here is in those lines penned by William Congreve three and a quarter centuries ago:

Heav’n has no rage like love to hatred turn’d,
Nor Hell a fury, like a woman scorn’d.

In April of 2018, Sabatini, separated from his wife and in divorce proceedings, started an affair with Kristin Knouse, below, a researcher at the Whitehead who was twenty years his junior—thirty to his fifty.

The affair chugged along for two years, although you get the impression from Suzy Weiss’s account—and she spoke to everyone that was willing to meet her—that Sabatini was losing interest.

You can guess the rest. Knouse told the director of the Whitehead Institute, a woman named Ruth Lehmann, that Sabatini had harassed and abused her. Ms. Lehmann [Email her] hired in a big law firm to do an investigation. They did one, and in August last year delivered their findings in a 250-page report.

What did the report say? It said Sabatini had failed to disclose his consensual relationship with Knouse as per company policy. Also that “his behavior created a sexualized undercurrent in the lab.” Also that, notwithstanding the fact Sabatini didn’t work with Knouse or supervise her and had no power to fire her, he had undue “influence” over her.

Those of Sabatini’s colleagues willing to speak to Suzy Weiss said the report was all hogwash, although one went further and called it “deeply insane.”

There is of course a money angle here. Labs like the Whitehead and research institutes like those at MIT live off multi-million-dollar grants from the National Institutes of Health (a federal government outfit) and big corporations and foundations, all of them locked in to Regime Ideology and terrified of the Thought Police.

So a brilliant cancer researcher, whose discoveries might have saved innumerable lives, has been canceled. Sure, he was an Expert—a first-class Expert in his field, the best of the best. And sure, there is no clear evidence he did anything that a sane person would consider deplorable or even just unpleasant.

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Academia, Political Correctness 

[Excerpted from the latest Radio Derb, now available exclusively through]

Earlier: JOHN DERBYSHIRE: *100,000* Afghan Refugees Coming Here???!!! Why Not Settle Them Amid Co-Ethnics In The ‘Stans?

Last night, Thursday night, I attended a Center for Immigration Studies event. CIS is based in Washington, D.C. but they hold occasional events in New York City. They have good speakers with interesting things to say about immigration.

These New York events were suspended for the duration of the COVID panic. That panic now being over—by general popular agreement, if not by government declaration—CIS has resumed them. I was glad to be there for this first one following the resumption.

CIS, I should say, has no formal relationship with They don’t endorse anything we say, and we don’t endorse anything they say. Our positions are more radical than theirs. For example: To the best of my knowledge, CIS have never called for a total immigration moratorium, as we have. Also, they limit themselves very strictly to immigration issues, not venturing into other topics related to multiculturalism and national identity, as we do.

None of that has prevented the Southern Poverty Law Center and their glove puppets at Wikipedia from designating CIS as an extremist group of hateful racists filled with hate, burning crosses on immigrants’ front lawns and so on.

That’s for CIS themselves to deal with though—which they do, calmly and professionally. and CIS are, as I said, unrelated organizations with different approaches. However, sharing CIS’s interest in immigration issues, I naturally attend their events when I can, to hear what their invited speakers have to say.

So there I was on Thursday night to hear a Hungarian scholar, Kristóf György Veres, give us his country’s perspective on immigration into the West. As a Hungarophile from way back, I was particularly interested in what Dr. Veres had to say.

He did not disappoint. Speaking in excellent English, he took us through some basic issues with the official, UN-sanctioned definitions of terms like “refugee” and “asylum seeker.” Then he described the events of the mid-2010s, when people escaping the Syrian civil war, mixed in with opportunists from places further east and south, flooded up through the Balkans. At its south, Hungary has nearly four hundred miles of border with Serbia, Croatia, and Slovenia, so the flood hit Hungary with full force.

Hungary responded appropriately; appropriately, I mean, to the ideals of national sovereignty we cherish here at [Ukrainian Refugees and Europe: A Marathon, Not a Sprint, by Kristof Gyorgy Veres and Viktor Marsai,, April 2, 2022]. They built a good stout double barrier fence along their southern border and defended it very vigorously against would-be invaders—water cannon, tear gas, nightsticks and hand-to-hand engagement when unavoidable.

Progress Report from Hungary’s Fenced Borderlands

What America can learn from a small nation that stopped mass migrant caravans cold

By Todd Bensman,, April 3, 2019

That solved the problem. It also offered a splendid example of how to solve this kind of problem, for any other country willing to learn—a category that apparently excludes the USA.

But this border also needed a lot of well-trained manpower to keep it secure. When the Russia-Ukraine war started up, that presented the Hungarians with a new problem.

Up in its northeast Hungary has an 85-mile border with Ukraine. Naturally there have been a lot of Ukrainian refugees arriving at that border. This hasn’t been so much of a problem in itself since Ukrainian refugees have visa-free access to the European Union nations, of which Hungary is one.

However, a lot of people have been showing up at this border who are not Ukrainian nationals. Whose nationals are they?

They are nationals, says Dr. Veres, of the Middle East, of North Africa, in some cases of sub-Saharan Africa. What were they doing in Ukraine? Studying at colleges there, they tell the Hungarian border guards, or in some cases employed by Ukrainian companies.

Their stories are often hard to verify as Ukrainian corporate HR departments and college administrations have more pressing things on their minds right now than complying with Hungarian requests for documentation.

The refugees are mainly young men, too, which distinguishes them from genuine Ukrainian refugees. Ukrainian men are mostly forbidden to leave the country, which needs them for national defense work.

Could it be that some of these non-Ukrainians are opportunists using the war as a way to get into Europe? The Hungarian border force has to investigate this, while also carrying out the routine processing of Ukrainians. That’s manpower-intensive, leaving nothing like enough personnel to guard that southern border with the Balkans.

It was fascinating to hear first-hand nitty-gritty stuff like this from a scholar who’s researched it and been intimately involved with it. (And I should say that I was listening too intently to take proper notes. If I have misrepresented anything Dr. Veres said, I hope he’ll email me at with corrections, which I’ll be glad to publish.)

I did, though, hearing those stories about non-Ukrainian refugees from Ukraine following on from Dr. Veres’ remarks about the official definitions of terms like “refugee” and “asylum seeker,” I did find myself thinking that those definitions need work. Most especially I think we need to argue for affinity clauses in the definitions.

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Immigration, Ukraine 

Adapted from the latest Radio Derb, available exclusively at

You’re probably familiar with the idea that Anti-Racism is a religion. Perhaps you’ve read black scholar John McWhorter’s recent book making the argument. Published last October, it is helpfully titled: Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America.

Personally, I don’t believe that anti-racism is a full-function, properly-structured religion. I can’t take it that seriously. I do agree, though, that it appeals to some of the same modules in human brains that religions appeal to.

To the degree that anti-racism is a religion, it’s a primitive religion, like the magical cults of head-hunters in the New Guinea highlands. Without having any worked-out theology, it has some of the features those cults have: very strict language taboos, for instance. Here’s an example from my local newspaper the other day.

The story here concerns Emily Mais, a young white woman who was until recently Assistant Principal at Agnor-Hurt Elementary School, a government school in Charlottesville, VA [ Why I’m suing my former employer, a school district, over critical race theory, by Emily Mais, NY Post, May 1, 2022]

I looked that school up on It’s not doing very well: “Test scores at this school fall far below the state average.”. Students from low-income families: 56 percent. Student demographics: 37 percent white, 24 percent black, 23 percent Hispanic, 16 percent other.

Well, Ms. Mais was Assistant Principal there when the school re-opened after the worst of the COVID pandemic. Just at that time, the school decided to start mandatory teacher training based on critical race theory.

Their textbook was Courageous Conversations About Race by seasoned black anti-white hustler Glenn Singleton, below, who has been milking the corporate diversity- training cow for many years. [Clip: Moo-oo …] Er, you’ll be needing another bucket there, Glenn.

The content of the training didn’t sit well with Ms. Mais.

Quote from her:

I believe every person is made in the image of God and entitled to equal treatment and respect.

From the point of view of the “anti-racism” ideologues, that makes Ms Mais a naive, fragile white person trapped in the fantasy of so-called “color-blindness.” Correct your thinking, Comrade!

Instead of correcting her thinking, Ms. Mais decided to take her cue from the title of Glenn Singleton’s book and have some Courageous Conversations with her colleagues and her supervisors in the school district.

I hate to say it of such an obviously nice and well-intentioned lady, but Ms Mais is naive. Anyone who’s paid attention should know by now that, in the context of “anti-racist” training, “courageous” describes the quality that white people exhibit when they grovel before the class and confess their deep shame for being white, while “conversations” are what take place when an anti-racist instructor imparts the dogmas of the cult to an eagerly receptive white audience sitting listening in respectful silence.

Not knowing that, Ms Mais spoke up frankly about her misgivings:

But my concerns were ignored. And then, an honest mistake — a slip of the tongue — revealed just how hostile and unforgiving the culture had become as a result of this harmful content.

Oh dear, that must have been one heck of a slip of the tongue. What was it: the N-Word? Something about watermelons or nappy hair? Perhaps something that might have been construed to mean that Emmett Till got what was coming to him?

No, nothing so obviously…what’s the adjective?…yes, hurtful. Nothing so bad. I’ll let Ms. Mais tell you what made the sky fall on her:

In one training session, the group discussed the district’s race-related hiring practices. I commented on the topic, intending to use the phrase “people of color,” but as I was talking, I said “colored” instead. I immediately apologized, but one staff member would not accept the apology and berated me in front of the group.

Rather than accept it for what it was — a genuine slip of the tongue — the district treated me like a racist in need of further “anti-racism” instruction. District officials called me into meetings and demanded that I further address a situation for which I continued to apologize — yet my repeated apologies were never good enough.

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Political Correctness, Public Schools 

A Wordsworth moment

Yes, April — Spring!

Taking Basil for his walk one pleasant, warm morning in mid-April, I had a Wordsworth moment. It wasn’t actually daffodils, it was buttercups: a lo-o-ong row of them on an otherwise nondescript roadside verge.

In fact the “I” there should really be “we”: Basil was entranced, too.

Now oft when on his couch he lies, in vacant or in pensive mood

Check death

I have long since gotten used to writing “check” instead of “cheque.” For how much longer will this tiny morsel of Americanization avail me? Will checks soon disappear?

Whatever may be the case with checks, cheques seem to be dying a slow death. From across the pond:

Cheque usage peaked in 1990, when four billion were written, according to banking trade body UK Finance.

In 2010, more than a billion cheques were paid in. But this fell to 185 million during the pandemic in 2020, a 32 per cent decline on the previous year.

Barclays [bank] says the average number of cheques written by its personal customers is down by 44 per cent compared with before Covid-19 struck in early 2020.

Today, none of the High Street providers offers a chequebook to customers as standard. Those who want one must make a request. [Don’t write off our cheques! Millions rely on them, yet dozens of firms now refuse to take them or charge extra to use them … but you are fighting back by Amelia Murray; Daily Mail, April 12th 2022.]

If checks are going to fade away, I doubt credit cards will be far behind. We’ll then be where China is today: digital payment apps for all everyday purposes, supplemented by an occasional cash transaction (probably for something illicit).

China, said The New York Times in 2020, “skipped over a generation of finance and went straight to smartphone-based digital payments.” Indeed she did. Visiting my country-in-law at 18-year intervals, I’ve watched it happen.

When I lived there 1982-3 there was nothing but cash. It’s possible that checks were used in some corners of the Chinese economy — factory managers paying suppliers, perhaps — but none of my middle-class colleagues on the college staff had a checkbook. Credit cards were perfectly unknown.

When the college paid me off at the end of the year they did so in cash. I went to the bursar’s office and she carefully counted out the 100-RMB bills into my hand — an entire year’s salary. (And much more than a year’s working-class wages in China. A little knot of college workers stood watching the counting, slack-jawed and silent at the sight of so much money changing hands.)

Unfortunately the RMB couldn’t be exchanged for Western currency at the time — well, not legally — so I had to spend it all before I left. Among my purchases were the two stone lions that grace my front doorstep to this day (although badly in need of a steam-cleaning).

Returning in 2001, with China’s opening-up well under way, it was still the case that no-one of my acquaintance was writing checks. People knew about them, but only in a business context. China Daily reported in 2004 that

In Beijing alone, the clearing centre handles more than 140,000 cheques daily, and in Guangzhou, about 130,000 cheques per day. A bank such as Industrial and Commercial Bank of China in Shanghai handles around 40,000 cheques on a daily basis.

That was all business, though. Personal cheques — sorry: checks — were a rarity.

Credit cards likewise. They did take off: CNN Business reported in 2018 that “China had nearly 6.7 billion credit and debit cards in circulation” the previous year. That’s a surprising number — five cards per citizen — and I wonder if “billion” is a typo for “million.”

Whatever: there definitely are Chinese credit cards; I’ve seen them used. There is, however, no credit card culture, no expectation on checking out at a store that there will be a gadget to register your card with by swiping or inserting. Usually — well-nigh invariably outside the big cities — there won’t be.

So yes, there were checks and credit cards in 2019 China, and there still are. Before they could really settle in, however, digital payments came up and took over for most everyday purposes. The New York Times got it right: from the perspective of ordinary consumers, China went more or less directly from cash to digital.

Sometimes it’s an advantage to be behind everyone else. You have no installed base holding you back.

Amis Centenary

The British novelist Sir Kingsley Amis was born a hundred years ago this April 16th. I am an Amis fan from way back; I wrote an appreciation of him for National Review 24 years ago. From which:

Like all sensible people, Sir Kingsley regarded the Political Correctness movement with utter derision and cheerfully confessed to impure thoughts of the minor sort. He even wrote novels around such thoughts. The main character in Stanley and the Women (1985) wrestles with a question every man has pondered at some time or other: Are women all mad? Similarly, when asked in an interview whether he was antisemitic, Sir Kingsley replied: “Very, very mildly.” Urged to explain this, he added: “Well, when I’m watching the credits roll at the end of a TV program, I say to myself ‘Oh, there’s another one’.” Let him that is without sin cast the first stone.

Amis died in 1995. We should be glad, for his sake, that he was spared the horrors of wokeness. I’m not even sure that 1998 appreciation of mine would be publishable nowadays.

Several of Amis’s novels wouldn’t, for sure, as my reference to Stanley and the Women makes clear. That’s our loss. The raucous, bawdy, irreverent tradition in English-language fiction, the tradition of Chaucer and Shakespeare, is unacceptable to our enstupidated age, which prefers simplistic moral dramas.

• Category: Culture/Society, History • Tags: Russia 
John Derbyshire
About John Derbyshire

John Derbyshire writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjects for all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him. He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books. His most recent book, published by com is FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT (also available in Kindle).His writings are archived at